[694.1]

Has it been done? Clearing the steering box would be the hard part. A guy recently mentioned that he had heard of success with using a mini starter? You would likely need to change the Oil canister too.
Anyone?

[694.1]

Anyone?

[buds56]

I personally never tried it on my 56 but I believe your biggest problem is the steering box.
On mine I used 57-8 manifolds when I put in the 59-389.

[sdbob]

back in late 60s I put a 59 389 with 65 gto heads and pistons in my 55. I had long branch B body headers I tried once didn't seem to be easy. So I used std manifolds. I welded up an upside starter that worked,as manifold would burn solenoid. If you guys try this ,the flywheel ,torus cover,for the slant pan trans need to have slight amount of metal removed to clear the weights on the 389 crank. I found the hard way twice, the flywheel woubles-takes out front pump,then I learned. Read BM trans literature. I had the right flywheel in my parts but looked dirty so I used the cleaner flywheel!! ugh. Car ran good.

[Safari Larry]

To partially answer the original question, "Has it been done?", it has not been done and cannot be done for stock 1955-57 chassis, not sure about '58, chassis is different but likely same issue with steering box getting in the way.

Originally Posted by sdbob

back in late 60s I put a 59 389 with 65 gto heads and pistons in my 55. I had long branch B body headers I tried once didn't seem to be easy. So I used std manifolds. I welded up an upside starter that worked,as manifold would burn solenoid. If you guys try this ,the flywheel ,torus cover,for the slant pan trans need to have slight amount of metal removed to clear the weights on the 389 crank. I found the hard way twice, the flywheel woubles-takes out front pump,then I learned. Read BM trans literature. I had the right flywheel in my parts but looked dirty so I used the cleaner flywheel!! ugh. Car ran good.

Getting off subject, the issue with '59 engine interface to 55/56 dual range hydramatic is discussed at this link. I put '59 engine in 55 chassis but it had standard transmission so that was not an issue.

65 gto heads on 59 block is interesting. Did you use the 59 reverse-flow front cover and 59 distributing tubes in the 65 heads? The 59 block is designed for reverse-flow cooling, the 65 heads were used on "conventional" flow blocks. I've wondered if the distributing tubes can be used in later heads. I know they can in '60 heads but don't know about later heads.

[Jack Gifford]

No, the water distribution tubes do not fit into later heads. But the front of the early block can be modified for use with a late timing cover to give "normal" direction coolant flow.

[Safari Larry]

Originally Posted by Jack Gifford

No, the water distribution tubes do not fit into later heads. But the front of the early block can be modified for use with a late timing cover to give "normal" direction coolant flow.

Agree Jack. That's why I asked if he used the '59 front cover. Modifying the front of the early (reverse flow, 59 & earlier) block and using later front cover would work -- for a while.

There is a difference in water return passages in the deck for reverse flow vs "normal" flow. The reverse flow blocks have the same size water passages front to back. The "distributing tubes " (Pontiac terminology) in the heads distribute water evenly front to back providing for somewhat even cooling front to back.

Later blocks do not have the same size water passages in the deck, front to back. Water passages in back are larger than passages in the center, and some water passages in front of block deck are missing (as compared to reverse flow block). This would force more water to the back of the block to provide more cooling to the back. If water passages were all the same size (as in reverse flow block) most cooling water entering front of block would return through front passages (path of least resistance) resulting in reduced cooling of rear of engine, including cylinders and heads. Increased temperature in rear of engine would not be detected. I suspect this would affect longevity of rear cylinders and rear of heads.

My knowledge about this comes from comparing 59 (reverse flow) and 60 ("normal" flow) blocks. I would not use later front cover to convert reverse flow block to "normal" flow water cooling without doing something about water return passages in the deck -- and that's the more difficult problem.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Jack Gifford

No, the water distribution tubes do not fit into later heads. But the front of the early block can be modified for use with a late timing cover to give "normal" direction coolant flow.

The heads on my '61 have a hole in the front that's blocked off with a Welch plug - I've always wondered if that's a leftover from the earlier heads with water distribution tubes.

[Jack Gifford]

Yes.

Larry- it isn't difficult to resize deck coolant passages. Pressed-in steel plugs (nominally same thermal expansion as cast iron) and drill as needed.

[Safari Larry]

Jack, agree, what you suggest would close passages, but then there are the passages that need to be smaller. That too can be done. I'm just saying that when modifying a block from reverse flow to "standard" flow (or vice versa), everything must be considered. If you miss something, it may work fine for a while but maybe not after some hard miles. This is theory, I have not done it and would not do it.

[Jack Gifford]

Agreed, your advice is good.

[Rocky 389]

..and then there's the opposite way. I'm using late heads [1974 GTO heads] on an early [1957] block and I'm keeping the reverse flow. I compared the late heads to the early block with a head gasket...same holes with the exception of the oil feed hole to feed the galley in the early heads. I tapped and plugged those holes. The rockers oil through the pushrods.
The coolant flows just like it did in the 57 engine but there are no coolant distribution tubes in the late heads. Here's my thinking:
In 1960 and later, the coolant was introduced from the radiator into the block, flowed to the back and up into the heads, and pumped back into the top of the radiator. When the coolant was directed to the heads, it had already absorbed heat from the cylinder walls. Pontiac had no problems with this cooling method.
Now, I figure that if it worked, then the early reverse flow method where the cooled coolant from the radiator goes directly to the heads should work even better, distribution tubes or no tubes.
One of the bugaboos is the late heads are 1/4 inch shorter on the outside, than the early heads. Ordinarily, this would mean the head-mounted coolant elbows would no longer line up with the "nipples" on the water pump housing. And to complicate things, after you knock the frost plugs out of the fronts of the late heads, the head-mounted elbows physically mount to the heads ok but the coolant hole is offset to the elbow. Only about 2/3rds of the coolant hole shows through the hole in the elbow. No problem. I can kill 2 birds with one stone here. I cut out a 1/4 inch spacer to go between the head and the elbows. Gets the elbows lines up with the openings in the water pump housing and by offset grinding the inside of the spacers, I can get about 85% or maybe even 90% of the two holes lined up for the coolaant to flow out of the pump and into the heads.
This gets me as close as I can get to the old reverse flow system that use to work so well...just no distribution tubes.
BTW, before I lit this "franken-motor" off I used a 1/2 drill to run the oil pump. Took awhile but I got plenty of oil flow through the push roods and into the rockers. I fired the motor up [no cooling system hooked up yet] and got good flow to the rockers at 45 PSI. I used big block chevy 7/16ths screw-in rocker studs, factory push rod guide plates and poly locks for an adjustable valve train.
I have yet to hook up the coolant system but I'm thinking it'll work as good or better than the standard flow coolant system.

[Rocky 389]

Uh-oh...as I go back and look at this thread, it's about whether the late exhaust manifolds will fit the early chassis....my reply has totally nothing to do with that...I apologize....sorry If I can figure out how to delete it I will.

[Jack Gifford]

Rocky- don't apologize- it was Larry and me who steered this thread off-track.

I'll be interested to hear how well your reverse-flow/late-heads deal works out. Since Pontiac's stated reverse-cooling goal was to cool the valve seats enough to avoid seat inserts, I expect you'll be fine.

[Bill Hanlon]

What's the target vehicle for this 57/74 engine Rocky?

[Rocky 389]

Bill....it's in my trusty 34 ford coupe. Has a muncie 4 speed trans and a winters quick change. I still need to blow it apart for chassis finish welding and some urethane primer. Hope to be driving it next summer...

[694.1]

Rocky, that's going to be the Cat's Arse. Be sure to keep us posted!